Military Versus Defense: Ron Paul Smacks Down WSJ’s Seib

“Congressman Paul, South Carolina has seven major military bases, but you want to make major cuts in defense spending, several hundred billion dollars in the coming years. What do you say to people in this state?” – Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib. …. “I would say your question suggests you are very confused about my position. I want to cut money, overseas money. I don’t want to cut defense spending. We would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense. Watch out for the military-industrial complex!” – Ron Paul … YouTube, South Carolina debate, January 16, 2012

Dominant Social Theme: The US can’t cut military spending because it will leave the country vulnerable to its enemies.

Free-Market Analysis: A little later perhaps than Ron Paul supporters would have liked, the eminence of conservative libertarianism has in many ways hit his stride. This video clip (see below) shows how Ron Paul is now capable of cutting moderators, and generally debate opponents, to pieces when they make a verbal slip. We can surely recall other inspiring Ron Paul moments but this, in our humble opinion, is the best we’ve seen.

In this video Ron Paul makes a firm distinction between defense spending and military spending. It’s overdue, in our view, because Ron Paul has been continually criticized by neocons on this issue. He’s loony, they complain. He would leave America defenseless.

Not at all. The difference between military spending and defense spending is a critical one. If the general public ever begins to make the proper connections, this distinction could cause a major change in the way US voters visualize how Washington DC “protects” them.

Military expenditures, Ron Paul explains, include those that fund the US’s 900-plus bases around the world, the insane warring of the Anglosphere power elite and the expense of training and shipping soldiers anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice.

Defense spending, he explains, has to do with protecting the “country” itself and its citizens. Defense spending can be accomplished WITHOUT military spending. They are two different kinds of spending.

What Ron Paul does not explain while making this differentiation is how it came about. What is increasingly evident and obvious in this era of the Internet is that there is a Anglosphere power elite – a cabal, a criminal mafia if you will, that controls central banking around the world and is using its impossible cash flows to build world government.

It is THIS gambit – a New World Order – that the sociopolitical, economic and military facilities of the West have twisted for their purposes. Whether the industry is banking, financial, educational, construction or military, the actual behavior of the sector is relentlessly globalist.

This is what people don’t understand and what is difficult to describe as well. One needs to start with central banking and the unfathomable amounts of “money” that are available to those who control it. Then one needs to describe the “controllers” – those great, intergenerational, central-banking families and their enablers and associates.

Finally, one has to clearly explain their goals and objectives – the New World Order that they are relentlessly pursuing despite the Internet’s increasing exposure.

Only once this groundwork has been laid can people truly appreciate the manipulation that has taken place in the past few hundred years. People are encouraged to think of a given country as “theirs” – but their patriotism is misplaced. The average citizen of his or her country has little to no power in deciding their nation’s REAL policies, economic or otherwise.

This is because an Anglosphere power elite has used its tremendous Money Power to ensure that an increasing number of world leaders are beholden to it and will do as it dictates. This process was almost unimpeded until the advent of the Internet and the subsequent exposure of what’s been taking place the world over.

It is this movement toward world government that Congressman Ron Paul opposes. He uses his own language, of course, and does not seek to penetrate much beneath the surface – for good, political reasons. But the result of his prescription would be salutary indeed.

End the Fed and fund “defense” instead of the “military” and much of the move toward a totalitarian global government would be blunted. Video below …